Codex Sinaiticus: Old Testament (Facsimile)

Column 1

...evidence. The best way to address this point is to begin by summarizing the details connected with "Euthalius" that are important for our current purpose.

In many Greek manuscripts and in many versions, there are traces of something resembling a critical edition of the Acts and Epistles. This edition includes a series of prologues and chapter divisions, and it divides the text by line-count stichometrically: a method of measuring the length of a text by the number of lines (stichoi). Traditionally, this edition was attributed to Euthalius—an obscure figure who is sometimes described as a deacon, sometimes as a bishop, and sometimes as being from Alexandria or Soulka (which is likely Sulci in Sardinia). However, one of the many difficulties with this question is that scholars do not agree whether the name "Euthalius," or at least the location of Sulci, was a later addition to the tradition. It is therefore wiser at present to refer to "Euthalius" in quotation marks to show that the name is used as a symbol for the original editor of this edition of Acts and Epistles, rather than as the name of a verified historical person.

At one point in its history, this edition was compared with the manuscripts of Pamphilus in Caesarea by a man named Evagrius. His name is found in the concluding note colophon: an inscription at the end of a manuscript containing facts about its production attached to Codex H of the Pauline Epistles—the oldest manuscript of the "Euthalian" edition. In this respect, the history of the edition is exactly like that of the Codex Sinaiticus, which was corrected by a specific scribe (the "C corrector") using those same manuscripts for parts of the Old Testament. However, this does not prove that the edition was originally created in Caesarea, any more than it proves that the Codex Sinaiticus was written there.

Now, among the characteristics of the earliest form of this edition—belonging, that is, to the original "Euthalian" revised version recension: a critically revised version of a text, and not due to the later work of Evagrius—is a rather elaborate system of dividing Acts into chapters and smaller sub-sections. A corrupted form of this same system is found in both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. This discovery was made by Dr. Armitage Robinson,¹ who has shown that although both codices share the same corrupted form, each contains mistakes that the other avoided. In the Codex Sinaiticus, the chapter divisions were added by the scribe known as A², who worked in the scriptorium scriptorium: a room in a monastery or library set apart for writing and copying manuscripts. It is usually stated that in Codex Vaticanus, they were also added by a very early hand. From this, Dr. Armitage Robinson concluded that the numbering "must go back to a common source—some...

Column 2

...manuscript which provided its numbering to them both. This seems to imply that Sinaiticus (ℵ) and Vaticanus (B) were lying side-by-side in the same library during an early stage of their history." So far as the first part of this argument goes, it holds good. However, a glance at the facsimile of Codex Vaticanus² shows that the hand which added the numbering is not actually very early. It cannot easily be dated before the sixth century, and I believe it more likely belongs to the eighth. Thus, this argument does not shed any special light on the place of origin provenance: the place of origin or earliest known history of a document of the Codex Vaticanus.

However, the "Euthalian" character of the numbering in the Codex Sinaiticus remains a valuable fact. It is important in two ways. First, it removes the weight of a suggestion made by Westcott and Hort³ that the Codex Sinaiticus came from the West. They were struck by the similarity between its chapter numbering and the numbering in the Codex Amiatinus and other Latin Vulgate Vulgate: the late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible manuscripts. In light of Dr. Armitage Robinson’s work, we can see that this similarity is simply due to a common use of a "Euthalian" system. One is inclined to guess that if the system is related to Jerome (Hieronymian) in the Vulgate, it may be because the Evagrius who was a friend of Jerome is the same Evagrius who compared the "Euthalian" edition with the manuscripts of Pamphilus in Caesarea. He would then be the connecting link between Jerome and the "Euthalian" numbering.

Second, it is important because the only clue—admittedly a slight one—that we have for the origin of "Euthalius" is that in the prologue to Acts, the work is dedicated to Athanasius Athanasius (c. 296–373 AD) was the Bishop of Alexandria and a major figure in early Christianity. It is true that critics have doubted the authenticity and meaning of this dedication, but they have done so partly based on incorrect theories regarding the date of "Euthalius." In fact, there is no reason why he could not have been a younger contemporary of the great Athanasius. In any case, as far as it goes, this tradition certainly supports the theory that the Codex Sinaiticus came from an Egyptian origin.

All these arguments point to Egypt. However, because they are not entirely conclusive, it is necessary to point out the one serious argument that seems to direct us to Caesarea for the origin of the Codex Sinaiticus: it contains the Eusebian canons Eusebian canons: a system of cross-references between the four Gospels, created by Eusebius of Caesarea. One might think that the earlier the date assigned to the manuscript, the more likely it is that a manuscript containing...

¹ Works concerning Euthalius (Euthaliana) original: Euthaliana (Texts and Studies, iii. 3), pp. 36-43.
² An example will be found in the specimen on Plate III, column 4.
³ The New Testament in the Original Greek, first edition, p. 266.